Traditional family key to world peace: Pope

[Mare Tranquillity]

The UDHR makes the following references to family:

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.[/B]

It doesn't limit the family to "natural" and it doesnt' do that for a reason. Many families are single parent families, grandparents raising thier grandchildren, or extended family networks. I think it is important to not strictly define family because to do so places cultural imperatives over people.

Good post, Coyote, but it won't help, Nums has got to redefine the words to make them fit his religion--even though he tries to dress it up with Num logic.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You forgot to laugh like a simian with that equally non-sensical post.

You need to stop projecting your own shortcomings on others.

 

[Jarlaxle]

This is Num logic.

That is an oxymoron.

Emphasis on "*****".

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That is an oxymoron.

Emphasis on "*****".

Well, let's not be too hard on Nums, there is precedent for some pretty odd-seeming logic. The people who ran the Inqusition thought that it was logical to destroy the human body through torture if it would save the soul. More difficult is encompassing their torture of animals since even they believed that animals didn't have souls.

Nums has a kind of religious logic based on the complete/unquestioning acceptance of concepts for which many of us can find no reason or basis.

Nums assertion that logic is always logic is a fallacy, what we consider logic is based on our knowledge. Even math logic isn't absolute, logic that works with real numbers can fail miserably with imaginary numbers. Logic that works in a Newtonian frame of reference is often completely wrong in a quantum frame of reference.

 

[Coyote]

Well, let's not be too hard on Nums, there is precedent for some pretty odd-seeming logic. The people who ran the Inqusition thought that it was logical to destroy the human body through torture if it would save the soul. More difficult is encompassing their torture of animals since even they believed that animals didn't have souls.

Let's be fair to Numinus here and stick to the logic of his arguments. While I don't agree with him, I have never heard him advocate any of the above...

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Let's be fair to Numinus here and stick to the logic of his arguments. While I don't agree with him, I have never heard him advocate any of the above...

I didn't say or imply that any of those things were his beliefs, I used those things to show that weird beliefs had been around for a long time. I deliberately didn't use any of his so as not to pick on him.

I think that you and I should come to some kind of agreement on what the definition of "logic" is, Coyote, because I don't think what Nums is using can actually be "logic" under the denotation of the word, but perhaps it falls under one of the connotations though.

 

[Coyote]

I didn't say or imply that any of those things were his beliefs, I used those things to show that weird beliefs had been around for a long time. I deliberately didn't use any of his so as not to pick on him.

I think that you and I should come to some kind of agreement on what the definition of "logic" is, Coyote, because I don't think what Nums is using can actually be "logic" under the denotation of the word, but perhaps it falls under one of the connotations though.

I don't think all of Numinus' arguments are logical - but I do see the logic of defining marriage as being for the primary (though not only) purpose of family. Where he loses me is on defining family. If you limit the definition to that alone - you can not sanction infertile marriages (and the only response I recall to that was on another thread and was a statement to the effect of "that would be an insensitive breach of privacy"). In addition - there is the more confusing aspect of lesbians.

I think you can define it as being for family but...you then need to offer an alternative union for those other cases.

By the way - don't blame folks for illogical or irational beliefs....it might just be hard wired into us

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html

 

[numinus]

The UDHR makes the following references to family:

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.[/B]

It doesn't limit the family to "natural" and it doesnt' do that for a reason. Many families are single parent families, grandparents raising thier grandchildren, or extended family networks. I think it is important to not strictly define family because to do so places cultural imperatives over people.

The state is obligated to protect the 'NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL GROUP UNIT OF SOCIETY'. That would be the network of family relations that begins with the right of motherhood.

And that is exactly what the marital institution is for -- to PROTECT the 'natural and fundamental group unit of society'.

You can read it over and over, forward and backward and it would still mean the same thing.

 

[numinus]

Good post, Coyote, but it won't help, Nums has got to redefine the words to make them fit his religion--even though he tries to dress it up with Num logic.

The state need not protect in a special way, the agreement between two consenting gay adults because it is covered within the laws on contracts.

These agreements do not constitute the 'FUNDAMENTAL GROUP UNIT OF SOCIETY', by simple propositional logic alone.

 

[numinus]

You need to stop projecting your own shortcomings on others.

Wow!

One sentence about absolutely nothing related to the topic at hand. Did you think of that on your own or did your whole family help you with it?

 

[numinus]

I didn't say or imply that any of those things were his beliefs, I used those things to show that weird beliefs had been around for a long time. I deliberately didn't use any of his so as not to pick on him.

I think that you and I should come to some kind of agreement on what the definition of "logic" is, Coyote, because I don't think what Nums is using can actually be "logic" under the denotation of the word, but perhaps it falls under one of the connotations though.

God what ignorant nonsense!

People can't just agree on a whim on what is or what isn't logical. No matter how many morons of your ilk you can fool to agree with you, it would not do anything to the OPERATION OF PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC.

 

[numinus]

If you limit the definition to that alone - you can not sanction infertile marriages (and the only response I recall to that was on another thread and was a statement to the effect of "that would be an insensitive breach of privacy").

Infertility is a ground for NULLIFYING A MARRIAGE -- which means there is NO MARRIAGE. What more proof do you want?

In addition - there is the more confusing aspect of lesbians.

A lesbian is STILL a woman having the NATURAL FECUNDITY of a woman. If she chooses to exercise that natural fecundity via artificial insemination by an anonymous donor, the state cannot interfere with such an exercise of a fundamental right -- however misguided it may seem.

I think you can define it as being for family but...you then need to offer an alternative union for those other cases.

There is no need to define anything of that sort since an agreement freely entered into has the impetus of law as well.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

God what ignorant nonsense!

People can't just agree on a whim on what is or what isn't logical. No matter how many morons of your ilk you can fool to agree with you, it would not do anything to the OPERATION OF PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC.

Don't kid yourself, Nums, people do just exactly that, they agree that something is logical and rain abuse on anyone who has the audacity to question it. Religions are the worst offenders too. What did YOUR church do to the people with real logical arguments proving that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe and that the Sun didn't revolve around it?

OPERATION OF PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC, great phrase, Nums, but the Pope and his buddies won't buy it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

God what ignorant nonsense!

People can't just agree on a whim on what is or what isn't logical. No matter how many morons of your ilk you can fool to agree with you, it would not do anything to the OPERATION OF PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC.

Yeah, but what does it actually mean? Do you have any idea? Or is this just another semantically null, polysyllabic, piece of fluff to cover up the fact that you can't prove a point? Is this another example of Num logic?

 

[Coyote]

The state is obligated to protect the 'NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL GROUP UNIT OF SOCIETY'. That would be the network of family relations that begins with the right of motherhood.

And that is exactly what the marital institution is for -- to PROTECT the 'natural and fundamental group unit of society'.

You can read it over and over, forward and backward and it would still mean the same thing.

It may begin with a right of motherhood....but who is to say it ends there? Family does not mean the same thing in all societies.